[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[CHAPPERS]

Triple lock applying to pensioners next year. 10% increase for them.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Average salary for a barrister is a smidge under 90K (May 2022). Not convinced that they represent the most needy sector of society. I'm not aware that barrister's jobs are under threat. They aren't low paid. Yes, they will be suffering the same price increases as the rest of us but are in a far more secure financial position than many.

Ah! But they live in expensive properties and have large mortgages I hear you cry. Yes. But they can downsize. Not so easy to downsize from a council flat, or a room in a HMO, or living rough.

Striking for more wedge when the average sector salary is nearly £90K is greedy opportunism.

https://www.thelawyerportal.com/car...yer-salary-barrister-salary-solicitor-salary/

Barristers are striking because of courts being closed and Legal Aid almost non existant. It isn't a pay dispute.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Triple lock applying to pensioners next year. 10% increase for them.

I'll believe it when I see it. Sunak is now saying it was only suspended not removed and will be back.

 

[wealdgull]

Average salary for a barrister is a smidge under 90K (May 2022). Not convinced that they represent the most needy sector of society. I'm not aware that barrister's jobs are under threat. They aren't low paid. Yes, they will be suffering the same price increases as the rest of us but are in a far more secure financial position than many.

Ah! But they live in expensive properties and have large mortgages I hear you cry. Yes. But they can downsize. Not so easy to downsize from a council flat, or a room in a HMO, or living rough.

Striking for more wedge when the average sector salary is nearly £90K is greedy opportunism.

https://www.thelawyerportal.com/car...yer-salary-barrister-salary-solicitor-salary/

Criminal barristers are hardly representative of all barristers, so taking an average across the entire profession is meaningless. Criminal barristers often start with low salaries and remain with low salaries until they get fed up and move to other areas that are far more lucrative. Try https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/legal-practice-areas/the-criminal-bar for some information about criminal barristers in particular. For example: "It may be sexy work, but baby barrister pay on publicly-funded cases can be abysmal. Increasingly, barristers earn as little as £10,000 annually for their first year or two in practice."

The worrying thing is that the strike isn't even directly about pay: it's about case overload and lack of members in the profession due to cutbacks in legal aid. Which translates directly to people not being able to obtain justice unless they can afford to pay for it privately.

 

[Gwylan]

Average salary for a barrister is a smidge under 90K (May 2022). Not convinced that they represent the most needy sector of society. I'm not aware that barrister's jobs are under threat. They aren't low paid. Yes, they will be suffering the same price increases as the rest of us but are in a far more secure financial position than many.

This is, to use the appropriate legal jargon, total bollocks. Barrister pay is distorted hugely by the high pay earned by corporate lawyers. The last figure I saw for criminal barristers suggested that average pay was about £56k - although this is again distorted by the higher salaries earned by QCs. Figures produced by the Bar Association suggest that the criminal barristers in London earn about £12,200 per year after three years - you make think that's not low pay but barristers are barely above the tax threshold. Even if they earn more, you have to remember that this is gross pay and they have to fork out for chamber expenses and travel out of that.

What's causing this particular dispute is two-fold. One is the persistent cutting of the legal aid budget - it's fallen considerably in the last decade or so and the second is the closure of courts, leading to a backlog of 53,000 cases ... and rising. Why does this matter? Because barristers get paid by the case, not by the day and if they travel 90 miles at the crack of dawn to discover the case has been delayed and they have to come back another day, they could easily end up out of pocket.

How do I know so much about this? It's because the ex Mrs Gwylan was a young junior barrister. One who regularly worked late in the night looking at cases and would leave first thing in the morning to get to Winchester or Bury St Edmunds or wherever to get to her case. She only kept afloat because I paid the entire mortgage on our flat, she couldn't have survived on her own. When we split up, she left the profession and is now a hypno-therapist. But, the crucial point is this: we're talking about early noughties before the cuts in legal aid took place. If junior barristers found it tough to live on their fees before the 43% cut in salaries, how on earth are they managing now?

Highly-paid? Highly-paid, my arse.

 

[Baldseagull]

Average salary for a barrister is a smidge under 90K (May 2022). Not convinced that they represent the most needy sector of society. I'm not aware that barrister's jobs are under threat. They aren't low paid. Yes, they will be suffering the same price increases as the rest of us but are in a far more secure financial position than many.

Ah! But they live in expensive properties and have large mortgages I hear you cry. Yes. But they can downsize. Not so easy to downsize from a council flat, or a room in a HMO, or living rough.

Striking for more wedge when the average sector salary is nearly £90K is greedy opportunism.

https://www.thelawyerportal.com/car...yer-salary-barrister-salary-solicitor-salary/

You are quoting average sector salary, which is not what they are arguing about, it is the portion of work they do that is Legal aid funded. If legal aid work is too far below the rate for private work, barristers will choose to do less legal aid work, or none, and that is what is happening. You can call it greedy, or accept that most humans will choose to do at least more of the better paid work, and less of the not so well paid work, however charitable they may feel about defending a rapist in court.

My understanding is that they agreed a 15% rate increase for legal aid work some time ago, but it was not put in place, the government are saying the backlog of cases should be cleared at the old rate, before the new rate is implemented, so the barristers are now wanting a greater than 15% increase to make up for clearing the backlog at the old rates.
Barristers say the average pay for a new Barrister doing legal aid work is £12,000 a year in the first 3 years, and many are just quitting legal aid work because it does not pay. The Justice minister, James Cartlidge said the 15 per cent pay increase would see a “typical criminal barrister” earn around £7,000 more each year. If he is correct that put "a typical Criminal barrister" earning less than £50K from legal aid work. You can see the rates here.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/422/schedules/made?view=plain

If you get down to the hourly rates part, there are mechanics that charge more P/H than the rates for various types of work there, and the very top rates are only for barristers with long experience.

 

[The Clamp]

The Guardian Live;

Cost of living: No 10 defends above-inflation rise for pensioners but not public sector workers.

Well, that’s because there’s not a public sector worker in the country who would vote for the Nasty party. So why would Johnson care about them?
Whereas a load of Daily Mail addicted pensioners will vote for them quite happily. Even more so now.

Absolutely ****ing ludricous. This ****ing government.

 

[Baldseagull]

Mate, I'm not saying that. I'm glad those people are earning their £30k or whatever, because it would be a lot less if it wasn't unionised. But then there is nothing in the passage that you quoted that suggests otherwise.

What I do care about is the intransigence on both sides that means the country grinds to halt at a time when fuel is prohibitive to some who rely on the trains, and it's not as if either side have seemingly really tried to compromise. Nobody is saying "striking is a last solution but let's try and come to a solution because of our customers". Neither side gives a shit about the customers - that much was already apparent before we had to suffer this.

You made the comment "the people doing the work are already paid way in excess of what their skills would command elsewhere." That was what saddened me. I get that the service is overpriced and not nearly as reliable as it should be, but it's not like the operators are going to bring ticket prices down, or improve reliability with their proposals. The redundancies and severance packages were announced by the Rail Delivery Group last October, after, not during, all parties were involved in talks with the Rail Industry Recovery Group‎. It might seem sudden, but aspects of this disagreement have been there for a while.

 

[nicko31]

Triple lock applying to pensioners next year. 10% increase for them.

Till the end of the parliament....

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Triple lock applying to pensioners next year. 10% increase for them.

Bribe-tastic.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I struggle to take sides in this dispute and I don't want to blame the government or Labour either.

The fact is, this industry is a f**king shambles from top to bottom. The people running the train companies don't know their arses from their elbows and the people doing the work are already paid way in excess of what their skills would command elsewhere. The facts seem to be that the unions want 11%, the owners want to pay 2-3% (with attached conditions) and inflation is running at 11%. With literally every other industry you'd think "well there's a LOT of room for negotiation before resorting to a strike" but not with this lot. The union calls a strike whilst alleging that the owners haven't even contacted them.

I tell you what, it makes me think we can do without the pious "don't abuse our staff" posters we see, which largely happens because their service is absolute dog shit. The bottom line is quite clearly that nobody in the industry really gives a shit about the people paying through the nose for their appalling service. The customer always comes last in railway world.

Having seen how the unions “helped” BA staff a couple of years ago it doesn’t shock me.

Refunding the engage with BA management and in the end cost a lot of people jobs.

 

[darkwolf666]

It's funny how people moan like **** about the unions, in particular with their regards for the unions concerns regarding "safety" - but I'm guessing would be the first to point the finger of blame when another Clapham Junction crash happens!

This stance regards the unions reminds me a lot of the "what did the Romans do for us" skit in Monty Pythons Life of Brian.

 

[Lever]

It's funny how people moan like **** about the unions, in particular with their regards for the unions concerns regarding "safety" - but I'm guessing would be the first to point the finger of blame when another Clapham Junction crash happens!

This stance regards the unions reminds me a lot of the "what did the Romans do for us" skit in Monty Pythons Life of Brian.

...or... https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1537075478980399106?s=20&t=-krA8DdhOTCofD5hxADcBA

 

[Deadly Danson]

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of this dispute but if ANYONE is stupid enough to have watched this rancid, lying, corrupt government over the past few years and still believe them over the RMT and don't believe that they want to de-skill, cut corners, divide workers and make it a race to the bottom then you need to give your heads a wobble.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's funny how people moan like **** about the unions, in particular with their regards for the unions concerns regarding "safety" - but I'm guessing would be the first to point the finger of blame when another Clapham Junction crash happens!

This stance regards the unions reminds me a lot of the "what did the Romans do for us" skit in Monty Pythons Life of Brian.

I read a tweet earlier where it was suggested drones could inspect the tracks, which was answered with, a drone can’t tighten up nuts.

 

[franks brother]

Johnson's government is trying to convince us that any pay rise above 3% for public sector workers is "inflationary" while a 10% increase for pensioners somehow isn't.

The only difference is that one group largely votes for them and the other group largely doesn't.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of this dispute but if ANYONE is stupid enough to have watched this rancid, lying, corrupt government over the past few years and still believe them over the RMT and don't believe that they want to de-skill, cut corners, divide workers and make it a race to the bottom then you need to give your heads a wobble.

I have been pulled up on NSC before because I always 'think the worst' of this Government and don't treat every new episode 'in a balanced manner giving them the benefit of the doubt' because maybe this time, it may be for the benefit of the British Nation.

At what point does being kicked in the bollocks at every single opportunity cease to be considered 'a little naïve' and just proves to be just 'really f***ing stupid'

It seems to happen less on a daily basis though, even if it's a bit late

 

[beorhthelm]

It's funny how people moan like **** about the unions, in particular with their regards for the unions concerns regarding "safety" - but I'm guessing would be the first to point the finger of blame when another Clapham Junction crash happens!

This stance regards the unions reminds me a lot of the "what did the Romans do for us" skit in Monty Pythons Life of Brian.

safety isnt their responsibility. when any crash or incident occurs the finger is firmly on the managment and organisation that are responsible. Network Rail reckons it can do more safety checks more consistently with tech, so will need fewer workers to traipse up and down lines. i havent heard union complain the tech wont be able to do the job, just loss of members.

 

[WATFORD zero]

safety isnt their responsibility. when any crash or incident occurs the finger is firmly on the managment and organisation that are responsible. Network Rail reckons it can do more safety checks more consistently with tech, so will need fewer workers to traipse up and down lines. i havent heard union complain the tech wont be able to do the job, just loss of members.

Maybe you could give some sources and links for all these things that 'you've heard' ?

 

[Baldseagull]

I read a tweet earlier where it was suggested drones could inspect the tracks, which was answered with, a drone can’t tighten up nuts.

Tory on C4 News last night saying that the RMT is defending archaic practices citing "there are trains that can inspect the track for cracks as they go, and do so better than humans", the RMT guy says "We've had them since 2010, I negotiated the agreement to bring them in".